Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Admits Compromising Principles in China

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sorry-about-that dept.

muellerr1 writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that it had adopted 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with' in their Chinese activities. Though it doesn't yet sound like they're admitting to actually doing evil, it does appear that they are thinking about pulling out of China rather than compromise their 'do no evil' motto."

48 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. It all makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Google is not evil and China is, then it's just logical that they'd pull out. We wouldn't want a rift in the space-time continuum now, would we?

    1. Re:It all makes sense by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh? they weren't denying censoring searches, it was written in plain text (chinese though) on the frigging result pages.

      What they were denying was that it was evil, or that "bringing limited informations" was a worse evil than "not bringing any information at all". And I, for one, agreed with google on that one: most chinese don't care that their search results are censored, as long as Google only censors it's chinese-based services and clearly states that the results are filtered it can only bring a better content and a better awareness to the chinese.

      If tomorrow my own country decided to start filtering information, I'd be hella glad if Google kept on feeding me with (filtered) search result if it told me that the results were filtered.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:It all makes sense by SnapShot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I try not to get all of my rules of living from science fiction books, but I think _The Diamond Age_ (Stephenson) made a good point when it took the stand that hipocrisy is not the worst of all sins. The point was that taking a stand and failing to live up to it is better than not taking a stand at all.

      Obviously, this requires constant examination. Someone who continues to expouse a principal yet do something else (c.f. Republican congress and fiscal responsibility) needs to be called out on their actions, but I'm willing to give Google a little bit of leeway... this time.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    3. Re:It all makes sense by alucinor · · Score: 5, Funny

      The U.S. is pretty evil too. I hope they pull out of there.

      --
      random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
    4. Re:It all makes sense by rm69990 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, I don't notice a date anywhere on your linked page, so how can we determine that Google had this on their site while censoring searches? In-fact, I went to that webpage, and this is what it currently says:

      Does Google censor search results?

      It is Google's policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.

      http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer =17795&topic=368

      Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.

  2. Good for Brin! by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The China censorship issue was a very difficult decision and, no matter how you look at it, they chose the less moral option... If they truly follow up and reverse their policy on China I will have to cease my usual cynicism and admit that Google may truly be a _moral_ company!

    Go Brin! Go Google!

    1. Re:Good for Brin! by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He made these comments many many months after people started talking about this, and it's probable he only did it now because the criticism was getting to a point where it was beginning to affect their other business. If they really felt it was so wrong for them to do it, they either would have pulled the plug much earlier or not gone in to China under those conditions in the first place.

      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones. Sure, they get to act like they're doing it so they won't be "evil," but they'll really be doing it because they're afraid the bad publicity the China issue has been generating and will continue to generate will drag down their numbers in other areas.

    2. Re:Good for Brin! by phillywize · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whatever the equities of Google's deal-with-the-devil agreement with the Chinese government, it speaks well of Google that they're even copping to the problem with knuckling under to censorship. Things obviously aren't as bad as they could be; things would be much worse if Brin were maintaining that what they did in China was the greatest thing ever. A company willing to question its politically controversial decisions publicly is probably not irretrievably evil. Whether it's moral is another question.

    3. Re:Good for Brin! by DeusExMalex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet even if they pull out of China for purly business reasons they wouldn't be doing evil. (Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil.) "Don't be evil" != "Be good"

    4. Re:Good for Brin! by EMeta · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, no. Pulling out of a country who will have more internet users than America and Europe combined in the next 10-15 years is not good for any internet business. There is no amount of publicity enhancement that could cover this change, especially since there are no other large internet companies who are competing with Google for the least evil award.

      Taking a moral path is not about always being right. It is about always striving to be right & taking the care to reevaluate situations based on the current and future situations. I'm just glad there are still companies who know the M word.

    5. Re:Good for Brin! by gid13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he's doing it for business reasons, then you probably have a very high opinion of capitalism. However, if it's indeed business reasons, one would have to wonder why Microsoft, Yahoo, et al have not been pulling out too.

    6. Re:Good for Brin! by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones.

      And it's up to all of us to make sure that good morals = good business.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Good for Brin! by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones. Sure, they get to act like they're doing it so they won't be "evil," but they'll really be doing it because they're afraid the bad publicity the China issue has been generating and will continue to generate will drag down their numbers in other areas.

      There really is no externally observable difference between morality and publicity in this case. Their motto is "don't be evil." So they've set up their business so that being evil will generate a disproportionate amount of bad publicity. They've organized everything so that morality and publicity are inextricable: more so than in ordinary businesses. That in itself is admirable. But in the end, why does it matter what their internal motivations are? Why do you care? If we reward companies that do good and punish those that do bad, more will do good. If we punish those that do good with cynicism then there is no (business) reason for them to do good.

    8. Re:Good for Brin! by kponto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil,

      Duh... we're liberals.

      --
      This too, will end.
  3. Why now? by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speaking in Washington, Sergey Brin, Google's billionaire co-founder, said the company, which operates under the motto "do no evil", had adopted "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with".

    In a hint that Google could adjust its stance in China in the future, he added: "Perhaps now [emphasis mine] the principled approach makes more sense."

    So what took you so long Sergey? Why now? Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start? Talk about coming to the party late!

    Just how much back-pedalling Google does now should be interesting, as this is no doubt going to cause revenue problems in the long run and a bit of a publicity flap in the short run, though if Google decides to finally stand on its principles and other companies like Microsoft and Yahoo don't follow along, it should regain a lot of standing in many people's eyes. Well, except for the Chinese government's anyway...

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Why now? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start?

      Given what little we've heard about the internal debates at Google, they were crystal clear that it was a bad idea but decided the alternatives were even worse:
      Problem. Chinese people lack access to non-governmental information
      Answer. Do something that results in their government shutting down Google altogether.

      Should you choose your actions based on their effects or on your principles? Ethicists could argue either side of that until you ran out of the room in boredom. Google chose, or tried to choose, the greatest good for the greatest number. We can all guess what rms would have done in their place.

    2. Re:Why now? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you actually had any morals, you would have realized that in the first place.

      You mean you've never done anything wrong, that you knew was wrong at the time, and then later realized that you just can't live with it and have to fix it?

      I'm not saying that's what's going on here, I have no idea whether or not Google is actually going to change it's approach to China, and I have no idea what the real motivations will be if they do, but I think it's important to remember that decisions are made by people, and even very moral people make mistakes. The way you can tell that they're very moral people is that they can't just leave it at that, they fix their mistakes if at all possible. It takes a great deal of moral courage to admit that you made a mistake and did a morally reprehensible thing, but admitting to it is a prerequisite to correcting it.

      In this particular situation, I can see how the mistake could be made, pretty easily. The moral question isn't as clear cut as many here seem to think. Which will really help the Chinese people more, a censored search service or no search service? I also think Google made the wrong decision, but I can see how easy it would be to justify the one they made, particularly given the high incentive to do business in China.

      If Google ends their censorship in China, it may well be for purely business reasons, and the moral issues may just be a smokescreen, but to presume that *must* be the case is excessively cynical. Don't attribute to malice (or evil) what can be adequately explained by incompetence (or error).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. It's called being human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Even the slashdot editors have compromised too.

    From their FAQ: I thought everyone on Slashdot hated the RIAA, the MPAA, and Microsoft. Why do you keep hyping CDs, movies, and Windows games?

    Big corporations are what they are. They sell us cool stuff with one hand and tighten the screws on our freedoms with the other. We hate them every morning and love them every afternoon, and vice versa. This is part of living in the modern world: you take your yin with your yang and try to figure out how to do what's right the best you can. If you think it has to be all one way or the other, that's cool, share your opinions, but don't expect everyone else to think the same.

    Nobody is perfect, not even Google.

  5. will others follow suit? by binarstu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I certainly hope that other companies, particularly Yahoo, which has been implicated in providing information to Chinese authorities leading to the arrest of political dissidents, will feel pressured by Google's recent announcement to be more candid about their own policies regarding operations in China. If our big Internet players were to stand up for what is right, it'd be a powerful statement for human rights.

  6. Yeah, right. by Kid+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's easy to admit you did something bad after the first few large paychecks for compromising your beliefs. I'm sure that pile of cash will soothe their guilt over the decision.

  7. Shareholders? by chrismcdirty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How will the shareholders feel if they pull out of China? Would that be acting in the shareholders' best interests? I'm not sure if ignoring a possible 1.3 billion people would be the best for them in the long run.

    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    1. Re:Shareholders? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would that be acting in the shareholders' best interests?

      Unbelievably, the choice between "Do Evil" and "Do no Evil" is irrelevant as Google is obliged by law to follow the shareholders interests above everything else.

      Sad, sad, sad state of affairs, where a company is required by law to do what many consider to be immoral.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Shareholders? by at_slashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The company principle is "do no evil" Shareholders by buying into Google stock subscribe to that principle, they can't hold Google responsible for following their declared principle.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    3. Re:Shareholders? by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law is also very flexible about allowing a company to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends but there are people who determine their investments beyond stock earning power.

    4. Re:Shareholders? by anaesthetica · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unbelievably, the choice between "Do Evil" and "Do no Evil" is irrelevant as Google is obliged by law to follow the shareholders interests above everything else.

      Perhaps, but remember that Brin and Page issued an "Owner's Manual" for their stock when it was issued, and that it was issued in two different classes. Class A stock has much lower voting representation than Class B stock (a ratio of 1:10 voting weight). Class B stockholders are the ones with real power to steer Google, and Google's Class B stock is tightly held. Brin and Page together hold 33% of the Class B stock, which is enough to ensure that they can direct the company.

      Co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page own 33% of Google's Class B stock and have developed a voting structure that would let them keep the control of their creation. According to CNN Money, Brin owns 38.5 million Class B stocks while Page owns 38.6 million. The voting system that the two have put in place allows holders of B-level stock to have 10 votes for each share. Owners of Google's Class A stock, which is what Google will be offering to the public, will have only one vote per stock. CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, owns 14.8 million Class B shares. Venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital each hold 23.9 million Class B shares. After that, the next largest Class B stock holder "is investor K. Ram Shriram, Amazon.com's former vice president of business development, with 5.3 million shares, or 2.3 percent."
      --
      The Rise and Fall of Online Community
  8. I disagree by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know that if you were running Google, you wouldn't have turned your back to China. Google did no evil here.

    It sounds like you're saying that since greed is universal, it's acceptable to help an oppressive regime in the name of profit.

    I know I'm going from zero to Godwin in only ten seconds, but the Nazis were just doing their jobs, too. Obviously there is a huge difference between filtering search results and gassing people and putting them in mass graves, but the logic doesn't improve any as the severity decreases.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Googlasia went public today sporting a motto "Do As Little Evil As Possible". Stocks soared from the opening price.

    It will be interesting to see how this holds against their primary competitor, Microsoft which has embraced the Chinese market. They do not stand to lose their image or their corporate motto of "Screw Everyone."

  10. What about US censorship? by Tojo-Mojo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google complies with the DMCA, which requires it censor certain search results (for example, "kazaalite" http://www.google.com/search?q=kazaalite will display a notice at the bottom indicating search results were removed).

    Admittedly, it doesn't go as far as China's censorship, but this is a slippery slope. Why is censorship there "evil", but censorship here is not? Google is complying with the law. Yes, I think it's a bad law. But since when is obeying the law evil? Why is it up to Google to crusade against government policy? Are they some kind of political super-hero?

    1. Re:What about US censorship? by fbjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because following the law isn't the same as doing the Right Thing (tm), especially as the laws get more oppressive or totalitarian. Unless of course oppression or totalitarianism happen to be the Right Thing, which I don't presume.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  11. Google employees in china by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google has employees in China. I can imagine how the treatment of these employees might be used to the advantage of the Chinese government if Google is weighing whether to pull out. It would be truly dirty for the government to threaten the welfare of former google employees in discussions with the management, and it would lead to quite an international conundrum. At the same time, it is possible. China isn't exactly known for protecting human rights. Thoughts?

  12. All eyes are on Google by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After making such statements, they have no choice but to pull out now.

    Many companies are starting to follow Google's lead in many ways and on many things. If they say they are considering pulling out and then fail to do it, the disappointment in Google will be enormous. If Google lived and prospered everywhere EXCEPT China, that could only serve to make Google look good and China look bad.

      I feel pretty much the same about IP and DRM issues in the world where if the world refuses and legislates against IP and DRM leaving only the US with such restrictive laws, it will really make the US look bad and evil.

  13. Google by Blue6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is a publicly traded company will see how big their balls are when the stock holders get involved.

    --
    EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
  14. Re:Google did no evil by Churla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, there is this third option.

    C) Don't bow to the Chinese government, they will not allow the site. They are the ones denying the Chinese people access to Google, not Google. Which means Google is doing no evil, but the Chinese government is.

    You can't sugarcoat "Agree to censor" enough to make it not evil, sorry.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  15. Amazing. by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've never in my life seen a corporate head admit wrongdoing so quickly without being forced to by a court. This is simply amazing.

    --
    San Francisco Photographers
  16. Google didn't do evil... They just didn't do good by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I can tell Google continued its "Do no evil" policy in China. They didn't take anything away from Chinese users- they merely offered a new Chinese service that openly filters results. How many Chinese search engines mention that they filter results? When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? Google isn't hurting the Chinese- (Unlike Yahoo!, which gives the Chinese government personal data) it just can't help them much.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  17. Why is it Google's job to reform China? by jjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why there's anger at Google for obeying Chinese laws. Do I agree with those laws? Hell no. But business is business. Google doesn't make money from fostering democracy in foreign lands. They make money from selling ads. China is potentially a very large market, and so Google is doing what it has to as a profit-oriented venture.

    If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.

    And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.

    The reaction I've seen on this site on others to Google's decision is way out of line to what was done.

    I have no doubt that China will need to liberalize their government. If they want to be an effective technological power, they will need smart people and that means increasingly free access to information.

    1. Re:Why is it Google's job to reform China? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.

      And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.

      Just doing business. Only following orders. Caught up with the mob. It's only the Communists. Too young to know better. To old to think straight. How many other excuses are there?

      Bottom Line. Google are in bed with those dictators. Sure, maybe not every night of the week, but most nights. They're making money by colluding with a totalitarian state. No amount of excuses, handwringing, poignant apologies or clever excuses is going to change this fact.

      If Google could not make money in China, they would never have sacraficed their oh so precious principles. But when faced with the mountains of riches on offer to them by simply caving into demands contrary to their stated values, they caved. Oh how they caved. They sold the good ship "Don't be evil" up the river and set sail for the high seas of profit, to return holds bursting with yuan and Party contacts. They caved, caved hard.

      You want to keep making excuses for them, fine. While you're at it, make some excuses for arms dealers that sell to "choppn' off heads n' shit" third world dictators. Make some more for companies that forced bonded labourers and their children to toil for the sake of business. And don't forget to make some for yourself.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  18. This is a perfect example... by Stevecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    of why I still refuse to trust Google with my information. "Do no evil" - except when it hurts the shareholder's bottom line. Google is still a public corporation and no matter what the employees profess to strive for the company exists to create profits. I am pretty surprised that Google does not have a 10 year policy of erring on the side of morality to prove to skeptics like me that their motto is more than just marketing hype. To me it appears that having a stock price over $300.00 / share is the real priority.

    -SmR

  19. other evils by ChristTrekker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google drops conservative sites from Google News. Interesting that 98% of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats. Also, Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google.

    Now, I'm not playing a partisan finger-pointing game. But these kinds of "censorship" tactics give the appearance of "evil" worse than that which they are trying to avoid, IMO. Especially when there seems to be political motives. If some news site posts factual news, real honest truth, then I don't see how you can object to it on any basis just because you don't happen to like it. That holds whether the truth hurts the political Right or the political Left.

    --

    Constitutionally Correct

  20. Show them you care by dino303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google is one of the very few companies which have a chance to remain "morally good" while still being successful. They just need to know that the people appreciate their "don't be evil" credo. For those who care checkout http://web.amnesty.org/pages/internet-110506-actio n-eng. regards lukas

  21. Theory of political composting by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Google is not evil and China is, then it's just logical that they'd pull out. We wouldn't want a rift in the space-time continuum now, would we?

    I don't know about that.

    The thing is, uncomfortable engagement can be more effective than complete, self-satisfied and puritanical shunning. There's no end to what people will do to push back against those who shun them. In fact it becomes a useful explanation for every failure: the bad guys are out to get us. Think Castro.

    Most of the time advocates of "constructive engagement" are just hypocrites who want to pay lip service to right and wrong. Google is not like that, I think, but it puts them in a sticky position. Some will fight them on moral grounds. Others will waffle in between. It's a messy and uncomfortable situation, whereas boycott is very clean and simple. The good thing about it is that it has the effect of making the party in question deal with the messiness, to explain and justify itself over and over. They'll spin, adjust, tweak and struggle to find some kind of comprimse that will square the circle. It's never enough to make them decide to take their ball and go home, but it never ends either. It'll be a continual embarassment. When the elite travel overseas, there'll always be a moment of uncomfortable silence when they talk to somebody while that person tries to figure out a way to navigate around the proverbial elephant in the room. Eventually, they may just decide it's eaasier to change than to put up with it. Think South Africa.

    So, what I'm saying is it's a good thing that Google is involved with China, although it is not necessarily "good" in a moral sense. And at the same time it's also a good thing that China and Google are getting a PR hiding by people. If Google is forced out, let's hope it's after a long struggle. Then China and the paladins of human rights can start struggling over choice #2. Then #3, #4 etc.

    It's an unappealing situation for the people involved, because it's messy. But messy is sometimes good. Keep it very nearly unbearably messy, but not quite. That's the ticket. Turn it into a tub of pig shit with a pot of gold at the bottom. Sooner or later they'll decide to quick trying to fish the pot out with a stick and muck out the shit.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Theory of political composting by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Normally that's true, and courts have upheld that profit maximization is expected, but "Don't be evil" and "Making the world a better place" are both clearly stated in Google's IPO prospectus. Stockholders shouldn't be surprised if they do what they said they were going to do when they went public. It might be different if they made no mention of it.

  22. Re:No, it was evil. by ID000001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a Chinese. I actually have relative live in china at that time who were heavily effected by the Massacre, I remember staying up 3 days straight watching the new hoping the sitution would improve. It did not, phone call were recieved that leave our family sob for months.

    And you know what? Today, I ask myself which one I prefer. If I'm still in China, would I rather shows my child a website where the seach of that event simply returns no result, or would I want some prove that government still leave much work to be done, by pointing at the note in a google search page that shows me they are forced to censor something.

    Which way to better let my child about the importances of freedom and the price we paid just to get make progress.

    I fails to find any alternative to shows easily show prove, and easily be aware of what we are being hidden from.

    I choose google.

  23. Can't enjoy unless perfect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. is not perfect (voting citizen speaking here) but it is damned good.

    You can insult the President, swear at the VP and still go home to your family. Try that in another country.

    While the U.S. is slowly dying, it has been a wonderful place. Sadly the Republic turned into a Democracy and finally now into Lawyer and Mob rule. Sad days are ahead but looking back, we have changed the world. Slavery, woman's rights, equality, free speech.....thanks to a bunch of rebels in boats.

    1. Re:Can't enjoy unless perfect? by zsau · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slavery was abolished in the British Empire by 1838; it was not abolished in the US till 1865. Women had the right to vote in New Zealand from 1893; in the US it was not until 1920 (with legislation at a federal level overturning territory legislation as late as 1887. Desegregation is associated with the US because segregation was...

      Don't fool yourself: America had some early innovations, but has been very conservative ever since. It's what happens when you teach yourselves you're perfect already.

      --
      Look out!
  24. The Tiananmen Square Example by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.

    What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example...

    Here's a Google.com search for "tiananmen"
    http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen

    Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen"
    http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

    creepy huh?

    Frontline did a piece about this a few months ago. It was called "The Tank Man" and it's viewable online.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/vi ew/

    Watch part 6, "The struggle to control information." A journalist hands a picture of the tank man to several Chinese university students, and they have -no- idea what the picture is about. That's crazy.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:The Tiananmen Square Example by rm69990 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but had you bothered to translate the Google.cn page you linked to into English, you would see that they do infact notify their users that results have been removed.

      http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fima ges.google.cn%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtiananmen&langpair=zh -CN%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

      As shown in the (admittedly shitty) translation:

      " According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show."

      Babelfish shows the exact same thing, although you'll have to do that yourself since it appears I cannot link directly to a translated page like I can with Google.

      So, with that in mind, how is Google censoring results without notifying their users, when it clearly says right on the page that results have been removed?

    2. Re:The Tiananmen Square Example by clragon · · Score: 3, Informative
      What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example... . . . Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen" http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

      Google does tell the users that the results are cencored. They even got blasted by the state ran media in China for doing so. (it was by XingHua I think...
      Right at the bottom of the page is this
      ""
      a rough translation is "according to local law and policies, some parts of the search results will not be shown".

      regarding the video you posted, yes, ofcourse not a lot of students in China can be exactly sure what that picture is about, since they probably never seen it before. But that does not prevent them from knowing about the '89 masacare that took place. Some bad translation was in the video, somewhere after 1 min, the narrator says "the boy said 89","but the girl made no connection". However when the boy said 89 in Chinese, the girl actually answered "probably" in chinese. A few words makes a huge difference. It shows how students in China does know about this issue, even thou it never comes up in Chinese media.
      Also, most Chinese does not want to do anything that will provoke the government. I don't know much about the backgrounds of the interview, but if a foriegn interviewer came to me to conduct an interview, asking me things that is very much sensitive to the government, I would just pretend to know nothing, since the governement could easily come the next day and expell me from the university without giving a valid reason. So in this interview, it is distinct possibility that the students might have guessed it was the 89 masacare, but pretended to not know about the issue, just so that they wont have to deal with the government.